Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo
A review of the facts appears to suggest that this isn't true at all.
We all know why you post picture after picture of Obama photoshopped into fascist propaganda, adding nothing to the thread but ramping up the tension. I've seen you do this again, and again, and again. You game the rules like a Portuguese soccer player who takes a dive for a penalty and then spends the rest of the game whining around the referee waving imaginary red cards.
A review of the facts would note that anyone who is on a forum and views a thread entitled "It's the Obama Photo and Caption Read!", knows such subject matter upsets them and then clicks on it anyway and complains, is complaining about their own behavior.
Originally Posted by jimmac
While that's true some make themselves a little difficult to ignore.
I'm interested to understand how some users have the ability to make their posts ignore the ignore feature.
So why do things that seem to be designed to encourage said behavior?
I'm even more interested to understand this supposed mind control. I mean if someone could force someone to click first on an Apple forum, then click on a forum called AppleOutsider, then click on a subforum called PoliticalOutsider, then click on a thread among many called "It's the Obama Photo and Caption Thread!" and then force them to read the content until they became so enraged as to lose control of themselves, they ought to be hired by the CIA or something of that nature. It would be a real life Operation Mindcrime!
Who knows what other behavior can be encouraged. Given the claimed weak state of some minds on here I do hope they avoid going in and reading the "Please go walk to the edge of a cliff and jump off" thread.
Originally Posted by jimmac Well then might I suggest that all of us that do have a problem with said encouragement use the ignore feature to eliminate the problem. In the interest of good faith I'll start but this will only work if all of us that are bothered do this.
Are you all listening?
There it's done.
It isn't done. These are not the droids you are looking for. You can go about your business and move along.
Originally Posted by groverat;1447367
It is the forum's problem as a whole if dozens of long-time participants are run-off because the forum becomes the de facto blog for a handful of people who do nothing but spew rants.
A political discussion forum can only flourish as long as no one is allowed to use the forum as a soapbox.[/b] How can that not be clear?
There were dozens of long-time participants run-off before and no one cared then because they were conservative. A careful study of threads will show that anyone who pops in and is conservative even now has to endure several posts worth of "which conservative is this that I know must have been here before but was run off or banned by Groverat and is now back under a different handle.
Applenut, Scott, were top ten posters who were banned. My inbox is filled with posts from what they see is a kind face asking me "Why are these guys asking me if I am NaplesX, Jubelum, Moe" or whatever name du jour crops up.
No one party can monopolize the forum as all have equal access. I guess the guy with 10,577 posts thinks the guy 11,032 posts has a problem because posting 0.16 times per day over eight years is a monopoly in one instance, but not the other.
When there are only a handful of posters it doesn't work. It's a bit of a snake eating its own tail. Allowing trolls runs off posters, which makes it more difficult for the ignore feature to be effective.
Please explain how the ignore features stops working based on the number of participants. That is a curious feature I have never seen.
The answer is a more intelligent and useful set of rules. I've been saying that since before I left administration of this forum and it's still the problem. Essentially a year later and it's gotten worse for exactly the reasons I am outlining. It's not rocket science.
It has gotten much much better. The reason why is consistent and clear moderation. The reason why so many have gotten themselves banned is because of the lack of this previously. They had some very bad habits whereby they learned that disagreement is a form of insult and that was because the moderator at that time had the same understanding. They thought it quite appropriate, by their reasoning to reply to an insult with an insult and thus "Bush sucks" was grounds to reply with "you are a stupid piece of crap."
We have moderation now that can truly understand the difference and that has made it awesome. Some people continue to ad-hom sources and then get frustrated at the failure of arguments to persuade. They still lash out when this frustration boils over. Soon hopefully the forum will be in an ideal state where the people in it have discussions and debates. I'd much rather have 10 people do the latter than 100 do the former.
Now back to the thread topic.
In Saudi Arabia, only the king gets to wear the bling. Give that to me!